Shooting with the Leica M9-P

'Real World' Samples gallery

There are 30 images in this samples gallery - a mixture of default JPEGs and processed raw files. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

Leica obviously has its admirers -- and its critics. There are definitely many cameras that take comparable images at a fraction of the price. But how many of us who perceive Leica as being arrogant haven't turned up our own noses at people we feel use inferior equipment (i.e. those who use compacts instead of DSLRs)?

Ironically, Magnum Photographer Alex Majoli (who has used both Leicas and DSLRs) shot stories for Newsweek and National Geographic with neither -- he used a 5 megapixel compact that you could find on ebay today for about $100. It was with this point and shoot that he won both the U.S. National Press Photographers Association's Best of Photojournalism Magazine Photographer of the Year Award and the U.S. Overseas Press Club's Feature Photography Award.

Whether the camera costs $10,000 or $100 -- it's probably a good idea to develop our skills to the level where it doesn't matter which camera we choose.

Having used (and enjoyed) an M3 for more than 30 years, I know what a RF is, but I think the cost of a current Leica M system cannot be justified. Any D7000 or 600D with a few cheap primes for Nikon or Canon would do a better job overall. The supposed great IQ of Leitz glass is usually wasted on handheld shooting at low speeds, one of the main uses of an M camera. I paid 500 USD 35 years ago for the M3+Summicron 35mm, a good inverstment. Would not pay more than 3000 USD dollars now for the M9 + same lens.

What do you expect? This is DPReview. 95% here never had a Leica in their hands or took just one photograph with it. Just look around in the forums, this is indeed telling. How many photographs of cats on the sofa? They don't even understand a Leica. So it's wasting time.

What do you expect? This is DPReview. 95% here never had a Leica in their hands or took just one photograph with it. Just look around in the forums, this is indeed telling. How many photographs of cats on the sofa? They don't even understand a Leica. So it's wasting time.

Were poor confused amateur photographers. How could we understand photography with out first embracing the Leica experience.

This was a most enjoyable read so thanks to DPR. My own view of the digital Ms is simple enough. A few years ago, I'd have given my right arm for one; not because of the function of the thing but because the form would have enabled me to take a no compromise approach on those business trips where space in my hand luggage was heavily constrained. As it was, there was a stark choice between a compact and a DSLR kit.

Fast forward a few years and an Olympus Pen with a pancake attached + additional lenses, EVF and spare batteries all fit comfortably in the front section of my laptop bag along with any none photographic things I need. Add to that I'm comfortable composing through the lens, often from edge to edge and for me personally, there would be little advantage for me in the rangefinder way of doing things.

Still, it's great to see a great European company thriving in a niche market and interesting to see what they do next (Sony FF sensor from D800e with live view perhaps)?

You assume a degree of mutual exclusion there. I don't believe Leica would do anything that would compromise the performance of their optics (well, not unless they wish to commit industrial-ritual suicide.

The closest thing to a Leica I have ever owned is my Panasonic Lumix ZS3. By setting the the maximum ISO to 800 and using intelligent auto exposure mode (iA), the images are gorgeous with more detail than my Nikon.

The point here is that low ISO performance is sometimes more important than high ISO performance. That is priceless. With that in mind, I rather get the D800E and save my pocket change for better glass. IMHO.

Hmmm. I could buy me a Daimler or RR to take me to work. But is it wise when I have to pay for it with my own money?The camera-world has moved on, and passed the Leica M in every detail....exept the price tag......Even Fujinon and Zuiko are now very close on the optics.

I let the status hunters be happy with their red dot.....................

Your guess is way off. I have THE Leicas on my analog Leica's. I have Fujinon on my Hasselblad's. I have tried them on my digitals with modern sensors....none of them are stellar.Fuji have redesigned their optics for the new digital, Leica has not (OK, they work on the old M-9 sensor).

I think the Fujinon lenses sold with the X-Pro1 are close but don't surpass Leica lenses. Let me correct that, the 35mm and 18mm lenses are good, the 60mm is poor. I've tried Leica lenses on the NEX-7 and Xpro-1. You can (with some careful focusing) get some almost leica like results with the X-Pro1, but the NEX has a tendency to push out "flat" looking results.

To be clear, I don't think you can get full frame results with an APS-C sensor and I think the XF lenses are good, but my 35mm Summilux is a lot better.

Erik, it's clear you have no idea. At all.It's simple geometry task to prove with X times larger sensor lens can achieve only (1/X) details of one that uses with the first sensor to match the performance. But in reality it's much easier to design a lens with larger focal length that gives the same resolution. In fact, larger focal length lenses are usually sharper. For example, my Lux 50 ASPH gives more details and they are sharper with 16Mp NEX-5N sensor @ 100% view than my Lux 35 ASPH FLE with 24Mp NEX-7 sensor @ 100%. Both are stellar lenses, but this is physics, Lux 50 has ≈1.5 higher magnification, and artifical magnification of 35mm lens to match pixel size only will show shortcomings. Larger sensor ⇒ better best available IQ (please, stop talking a rot about Fuji XPro-1 IQ — it's quite mediocre in fact, with low color depth due to silly "innovative" color filter that I hope won't be used anymore). The fuji thing is called "IQ at high sensitivities". That's it.

I'd just like to say I'm not a Leica fanboy -- I own 3 "current" Leica M lenses but do not (yet) own any M bodies, film or digital. I love high quality optics and as such own a bunch of Zeiss ZE glass for my 5D2.

Is the M9 overpriced for what it is? Certainly, yes. On the other hand it also unique and fills a niche that no other digital camera currently can. Yes, there's the X100 and X Pro-1, and while they are decent facsimile's, they can't touch the overall package offered by the Leica (namely the mechanical rangefinder, full frame 35mm sensor, and world class optics). True, you can mount Leica glass on the X Pro, but unless you're already invested in the M system I don't see the point. The reason you pay top dollar for Leica glass is because it's the best, wide open and edge to edge, as well as build quality.

I currently own a Panny GX1 along with some m4/3 lenses, and I'm sorry but it just can't touch what a full frame digital camera is capable of delivering

Not knocking the gear in any way but nothing in those photos indicates that they can't be taken with anything from P&S to the most expensive DSLR. I'd rather see an article to show what experienced photogs can do with a P&S camera.

What matters is not just the final output (a photo) but the whole "individual photographic experience". I think that the authors were not just showing photos taken with a Leica gear but how photos are taken with a Leica gear with its pros/cons. For some people taking a picture with a Leica is not just taking a picture!www.sergiodelucena.com/blog

Nice work by everyone, especially Amadou. Would like to see more articles like this. Frees up the staff from review "responsibility." And, yes, the reviews are a big responsibility, as they carry great weight in the photo community and impact buying decisions.

What's really sad here is that dpreview never reviewed the Leica M9 or M9P. So they finally put together a kit near the end of the product's life cycle? An "experience" review, without a single technical test or data. Meh. This is not the dpreview I remember. Really lowers them in my estimation.

@photomeme,Until I finish building my time machine, there's not much we can do about *not* reviewing a camera three years ago. As should be clear from both its title and length, this article was not intended as even a 'concise' camera review. At this point, we simply wanted to offer some 'in the field' experiences with a camera that many are speculating will be updated soon.Over the past 12 months we have significantly expanded the types of original content on dpreview. So yes, things are a bit different (and we hope, of interest to more readers). But it's also worth noting that the 'dpreview you remember' put out fewer in-depth camera reviews than we do now.

no one is asking you to 'fix' what happened two and a half years ago. there are others around you, and Phil Askey, who bear responsibility for neglecting the Leica M9 for so long. (your silly and uncalled for 'time machine' comment just demeans dpreview).

with so much leica expertise among your users, the errors and omissions from the article you did issue are disappointing. it's as if the site hasn't learned a thing about the crowdsourcing technologies that have been around longer than the M9.

@photomeme In my opinion, main problem is that DPR doesn't know how to evaluate and give score to this cameras. In compared with modern feature-rich camera market, honest verdict would be almost impossible (there is no sentimental value to old technology in score charts). Being heavily overpriced for photos it's deliver, it lingers on niche market. Yet some people who can afford peace of mechanical art, pricey quality lenses, sure have great pleasure of taking photos with it. But in end, I believe that ultimately photo is more important then equipment or sentimental value...

However to be fair, if given a chance, I would feel great pleasure in handling those peaces of art, and taking some nice photos with them.

Oh good lord how it irritates me to see people ripping on the DPReview guys for WHATEVER THEY BLOODY DO! Nothing is ever good enough for some people. If you do not like their content, do not visit the website. It really is that simple.You do not need to whine and moan about how someone else chooses to do their job. Does any member of the DPReview team come to your place of work and tell you that you aren't doing things properly? Doubt it. Then why do it to them?

I kept saying that my Nikons and Canons were all that I needed and that my lenses are already the best there is - until I got a very good offering of a 'new' M9 - with near zero clicks at a used price - put a cheap Voigtlander 35/2.5 and suddenly I realized what the fuss is all about. My next lens was a 28 Elmarit ASPH - and to be honest at ISO 160 and 320, none of my FF DSLR could win in term of IQ including noise. When converting RAW, Leica lenses need much less sharpening, partly due to lack of AA filter of course - plus the beauty of CCD, noise remains the same when unsharp mask applied. The end result is a smoother image with great color rendition - and with the crispness I never got from my DSLRs. Horses for courses, of course. I still use my DSLRs - plus an M9 that I'd love to use whenever possible!

Couldn't have put it better myself. After a decade of using SLRs both film and digital in the last two years I grabbed some Russian cheapies and it was a revelation, particularly in street photography.

i would have said "flow /through/ your camera" vs "slams it into a two-dimensional wall to leave an imprint in goo before sliding off in a heap," but yes, just so, and i suppose i could be overtaxing the metaphor...

I wouldn't go by the samples shown here as I wouldn't really judge any camera be it a leica, nikon or canon by samples seen on the web unless they are full size DNG/RAW files that you can download and work on yourself. Don't get me wrong I am not criticising dpreview for the quality of their samples just sying it's not the way to judge a camera

I agree that the images do not seem to be distinguishable from others but all images on the web, made by any camera, all look the same.The photographers describe the act of using the camera as pleasurable. As a former Leica owner (M-4 50 2.0) I can vouch for the singular shooting experience.

It's not really that it is superior it is just different. You obviously do things with a DSLR that you can't with a Rangefinder. a rangefinder camera though has it's advantages and can be great for documentary, travel work etc. the leica M's are small and quiet and as such can be lees obtrusive. the lenses and M9 sensor are great for landscape work at low iso. In the end it is down to a way of working and personally I prefer the rangefinder way if you prefer an SLR or TLR thats fine. each to his own

Viramati/Provia_fan - I'm not questioning the availability of other formats ..... I was being sarcastic - i.e. 'if the rangefinder is so superior' .... according to Leica fanboys - in their justification of the M concept (particularly in it's flaws being referred to as 'assets') - why was there ever a need for an SLR?

Rangefinders were never much good for action photography, or long lenses .... and virtually any camera on earth can take a landscape picture.

Any good compact camera can beat a Leica for convenience - 'travel, documentary' etc. The Leica never excels at anything ....

Only it's lenses are now worthy of note. Leica plods a lonely furrow, as the world of technology moves on.

True, and I have a 135mm Elmarit for my D700 and it works fine, BUT the IQ is no better than what I get from good Nikon glass every day and the "throw away rate" because of not quite sharp pic's is 5 times higher.

Some of the reviewers here seem to really have little real experience of using the M9. for example changing iso is so easy.1 press iso button2. turn thumb-wheel3. iso is changed Couldn't be simplerthe leica must have the easiest and most uncluttered menu system of any digital camera I know

@Viramati,Read what we wrote (again). And read what you wrote. Our complaint is with having to press *and* hold a very small button with one hand while using your other hand to navigate the selection, whether via pressing an arrow or rotating a dial.A not unreasonable expectation from a menu interface is that when you press and then release a button that brings up an entirely new screen menu, you can navigate through its options without having had to continue holding the button which called up the screen.

@OSAM,While Nikon DSLRs have a somewhat similar default behavior, you have the option to remove the 'hold' requirement via the custom menu. On the D800, for example, even with the press and hold requirement, the ISO button sits atop the camera and the command dial is positioned so that it can be comfortably adjusted without removing your hand from the shooting position.

I did read what you wrote but the fact is that it is incredibly quick and easy to change iso with the M9 and i would go onto to say that really quicker to do it with the leica than when I had the D700. I mean what is slow about pressing and holding a button and rotating a wheel at the same time!!!!! I do it every dayI mean the camera is small as are all the buttons but not that small as say the X100 (now there is a camera where changing iso can be a pain)

I checked out an M9 at a local camera shop to see what all the fuss was about. It was a lovely experience: the camera is clearly a fine piece of work, the rangefinder experience is enchanting and the lenses are to die for. But it's also heavy like a brick, has no hand grip to speak of, and has a *very* noisy sensor which was outclassed even when it was released.

I just can't buy into the idea of an $8k camera (no matter how seductive the look and feel) with a fixed, antiquated sensor. Unless you simply have money to burn, it doesn't make sense with a device you'll need to upgrade every 2-3 years.

I'm wondering how people shoot in their daily life and why they need so much high isos.I have an even older and worse Iso performer M8 which is use at Iso320 maximum. I rarely feel the need to go up iso640.If a camera was just about Isos...then I don't know how Cartier Bresson would have taken so beautiful shots for decades like he did with just a film camera.

You need higher sensitvity in lower light -- night and indoor sports, etc., which Cartier Bresson didn't seem to shoot much of. I'm convinced that Bresson and Adams would have used and mastered digital equipment and software had it been avaikable in their era. It was -- and remains -- all about capturing and then reproducing the image.

I disagree. HCB was so obssessed by getting the picture right that he even refuse to crop any of his pictures. Now you say he would have jump on digital and so post processing? I don't think so, despite we will never get the answer to this question.

If people nowadays are amused and feel good with Iso 25000 well I'm happy for them. Photographers, with film cameras, didn't wait that high isos were inventing to start shooting at night tough.

If your thing is Sport phography...then I doubt a manual focus camera is something you should consider...even it has kickass crazy high isos...

Those making negative comments have never used the camera. They talk, but have no experience. There is a reason WHY when you go to the Leica forum people show their pictures, which are gorgeous, whereas when you go to Canon/Nikon, etc forums they blather about equipment but rarely show their output.

I shed all that weight, have never been happier, do NOT in any way shape or form find the sensor "noisy" or antiquated. Now I can just concentrate on taking pictures, like the "good ole days".

You can get excellent lenses from all manufacturers today, and this "superiority" is rendered useless by the hopelessly inferior sensor in the M9, after looking at these images in full size I now understand why Kodak went out of business...

"Those making negative comments have never used the camera. They talk, but have no experience. There is a reason WHY when you go to the Leica forum people show their pictures, which are gorgeous, whereas when you go to Canon/Nikon, etc forums they blather about equipment but rarely show their output."

This is hilarious, I just looked at the l-camera forum and basically all they talk about is "which colour should I buy", "what camera case fits my purse best" or "what SD-card does the M9 not destroy".

Not true! Almost all of what you might describe as "negative comments" are directly related to the digital M-Series bodies obvious, and numerous technical shortcomings coupled with thier inexplicable corner cuttings of the few actual modern technical features that Leica does include: like having the cheapest quality, lowest resolution rear LCD on the market for almost any digital camera in 2012, nearly unacceptable buffer write speed just for a single "deliberate" shot..etc. It's always been about Leica's glass, and not with their anachronistic, retro technical and hugely over-priced bodies.

sgoldswo > You know...a M9 sensor is so inferior that we could even hardly call it a sensor...! The reason to that, reading all those comments, is simple: It doesn't have LOL clean 25 000 isos to shoot in a sunny day at Iso 6400...so obviously this sensor may be crap! Moreover...2FPS and slow buffer??? Whaha! With my Sony A57 I have 12FPS and a fast buffer so I can review each of my pictures instanltly without any delay when I take pictures of my cat lying on the Sofa in burst mode! This also helps me capture the decisive moments and get cat master pieces like HCB would have done in this modern age!!! Since it's obvious he would have been using a 5d MKIII at iso 100 000 with a 500mm F4 to do streephotography and avoid angry people noticing him taking their pictures.

@starwolfy I bow to your comment, perfectly illustrates how pathetic a lot of the people ragging on M9s are. I'm kinda irked at DPreview for posting such rotten washed out examples to give air to their empty arguments, but i digress. The M9 can stand proudly among the new DSLR full frame; the pictures it outputs at settings real users use are still sublime years later.

@Kodachrome200

It still outputs superior dynamic range, color and microdetail than the best 35mm film ever did, and at iso 160-640 it still matches todays new full fram DSLRs in such matters. Grow up.

About a year ago I got to shoot with an M9 for an afternoon. It was definitely fun to use and a great camera, but the cost is too prohibitive to be practical. It didn't impress me to the point where I just *had* to have one. Not at the current prices, anyway.

The only reasons to get an M9 is if you are in love with the rangefinder focusing or want a smallish camera and HAVE to have a 35mm equivalent sized sensor (even if it is a mediocre one). If you don't meet one or both those two requirements then there are much better choices at much lower prices.

And which "class" would that be? The upper "class leader" perhaps, but certainly not any kind of a IQ "Class leader" as compared to many of the far more modern and relevant digital compact camera offerings today - especially those that also allow Leica's still outstanding optics to be mounted on them. The only thing that the M9 (P) is "leading" in -- is in $$$$$$$$$$$.

Nothing to "educate" myself about at all concerning an aging Kodak CCd vs one of Sony's state-of-the-art Exmor CMOS sensors - which just recently scored the highest overall sensor score ever measured on DXOMark. And FujiFilm's new version of the Bayer patterned CMOS sensor also handily trumps the increasingly anachronistic M9's inferior CCD in DR, Color Depth, and most dramatically in any ISO's higher than 400.

I suggest you "educate" yourself a little more about the differences between being dedicated to a particular brand for basically the brands sake and status -- and being dedicated to attaining the best overall imaging IQ that's possible from any camera in 2012. And here's a wee hint to start your woefully deficient "education" out with: it's certainly not coming from of a 3 year old 7-8K +++ hand-tooled jewelry accessory from Europe ...

So far those back illuminated Sony sensors are not being used in ff or apsc sensored cameras.

Big deal the M9 doesn't shoot real well over ISO800. Tell me did the first serious (1999) Canon and Nikon DSLRs shoot well over ISO100? A 1999 Leica M lens sure beats any Nikon lens for colour in 2012. When oh when will Nikon catch up to Leica?

The sensor in the next iteration of the digital M will be better than that in the M9, that's all that matters.

Stop citing DXO, and start looking at full resolution prints and raw files.

I actually own and love a Leica M3, but the rangefinder design just doesn't cut it anymore. In it's day, it was the ideal compact 35mm camera. Today, the MILC cameras do it better, and at a much more reasonable cost.

Frankly, I'd rather have my Olympus EP1 and $9,500 in my pocket than a brand new Leica M9 plus lens. In many respects the EP1 will outperform the M9, but it just won't have the same prestige or status.

Lets be honest for a moment. If this very same Leica M9 had a Samsung badge on it, then no one would pay more than $800 to buy it.

I wish some one would release an $800 digital rangefinder. There are many people who like the idea of using a rangefinder camera but just can't afford or can't justify paying Leica's ridiculous price. Especially considering much of the tech in the Leica like the LCD and sensor for example are well below the quality you can get in other, less expensive cameras.

It sure as hell ain't about jewellery the leica is a bout pure photography and is a pure Photographers camera. My M9's are working cameras and and I sold all my Nikon gear as I never used it anymore. to say and Ep-1 will out perform a M9 is absurd

Leica accomplished a remarkable engineering feat, tying these lenses mirrorless to a contemporary digital sensor, without antialiasing filter, with low artificating (a bit of moire, besting the D800E just released). that puts them way ahead of all competitors in mirrorless.

it's the industry's most impressive miniaturization.

it's sensor Achilles Heel is higher ISO. But more important, for many applications, is class leading base ISO for full frame.

Weirdly I am from the young generation and starting photogtraphy with all those new tools like mirrorless camera.MILC was a good opportunity for me to try manual oldies lenses.The experience was so great to me that I decided to buy one of the only 100% manual focus dedicated camera out here: a Leica M8.The simplicity and the raw approach of this camera was so great to me that I sold all my other gear since. I even bought a M3 cuz the M8 made me to want to try film camera.This randefinder approach is amazing for me and I could not go back to anything else.I feel these Leica camera are saving me from consumerism. I am not into the high iso race, nor the pixel war, I am just shooting without feeling any need for an upgrade...and happy with the idea I'll maybe keep my lenses foreover...and this for the first time in my Life.

Please note, I didn't say the Ep-1 will out perform a M9 in everything. What I said was "in many ways."

And here are just a few of those ways:

* It is a lot smaller and lighter* It is around $7,000 cheaper* You can buy lenses for it without having to sell a kidney* It has liveview* It can take video* It has 7 kinds of AF, the M9 has exactly none* You won't have to take it apart to change a battery or card* It can shoot in 4 different aspect rations. The M9 is only 3:2* It can shoot above ISO 2500* You can buy lenses for it longer than 135mm* It has IBIS* It has a larger LCD screen* It has a faster continuous drive rate* It has 3 metering modes vs. 1 for the M9* It will do WB bracketing* It will do AE bracketing* It actually produces MUCH better jpegs* It can be triggered by a remote control

On the other hand, the M9 lets you see "what's outside the frame" in case you ever need to do that, and it really is a nice piece of jewelry.

I was just about to buy it now on Ebay an M8 body until I took a few pictures with my GF1/20mm @1.7 and saw how good that $550dlls combo is... oh, I also got the VF1 to complete my poor´s man X1 kit :)))

nothing against the 'mirrorless' options and i am glad they are here. many of them are a bargain, and no sensible person argues you cannot make truly great photos with them.

but they simply don't let you operate them with the speed and precision of a rf. af is fine if you want to cede control over the moment of exposure to the camera; i do not. and i can focus my m6 or m9 faster and more accurately than my 5d2.

the rf is not 'obsolete'; it is different. it is the only way you can see outside your frame in a vf. it is the only way you can frame and focus your picture while looking at a natural view of the world, not a flat, projected version on your focussing screen. you don't have to like or care about the difference, but plenty of other people do.

and enough already with the 'jewelry' cracks. we all know that some people buy cameras--many brands, leica included--for status. it doesn't follow that everyone who buys one does so for prestige.

Bevardis, I suggest you have a look through a Sony A77 or 65 EVF and try manual focusing through one of those. With the focus peaking feature and also the ability to magnify the image for manual focusing I reckon these cameras are the best cameras for manual focusing bar none. I have owned OM4's (100% f.o.v optical finder with interchangeable screens) , OM10's and used range-finder cameras and manual focusing my Sony A77 is easier than any of them.

Of course it does! I shoot manually with my D700 and Nikon lenses all the time. It works great and the results are amazing. Give me an M9 inside a church and it is lost, because even with a fast lense it is useless after 800 ISO. My D700 produces perfectly usable pictures at A4 size at 6400 ISO.

DxO doesnt count fact that it doesnt have AA and it does have ability to fully use Leica M lens (theres nothing else that has FF sensor and can use M lens). Mainly those lens make up for that lack of higher sensor quality. On other hand on base ISO, I cant find that CCD sensor lacking. :) CCD sensor and especially those without AA have few special abilities.. (unfortunate side-effect is moiré .. but apparently as Fuji showed, it can be done without AA and without moiré, I wouldnt mind if future Leica had Fuji modified sensor).

Homemade organic bread baked in wood-fired oven is also much more expensive than a normal white bread from the supermarket. Supermarket white slices better, doesn't crumble as much, packs quicker, has a more prescribed shape. But the homemade bread is hand made from start to finish — not machine made — and does taste better.And isn't that the whole point, to have more choice, rather than not have more choice? So, like it or not, the world of photography really needs a camera like Leica M. And to paraphrase Voltaire, if there wasn't a Leica M, we'd need to invent one.

I have been a photographer for some 35 years. There is no one perfect tool/camera. There is only the camera for the job that you need it for be it a commercial job shooting architecture or the style you shoot as an artist. I have taught,( as well as worked as well as exhibited for the past 20 years), and as a teacher I have sent students to the Museum of Modern Art's permanent exhibit and have asked them to find the photo which is perfect. The answer is always the same, either they are all perfect none. What makes them perfect is the artists vision what makes them imperfect is you can always find some technical issue. I also when asked by a student what camera to buy give the same answer, use the one that feels as if it is one with you. Years ago some would complain about Nikon because they felt it focused and the f stop ring went backwards. Kertesz used 2 1/4, leica, Olympus, and Polaroid and always created great works. Gene Smith used borrowed Minoltas, and created great works.

I'd like to see a review of leica lenses separately from a camera and also comparison to similar lenses from other vendors (though not only MTF charts).

is it only mirrorless cameras that can be used with rangefinder lenses?in this case it look like unfortunately there are no full-frame mirrorless cameras currently available, to make such comparison comprehensive.

In any case, I bet nobody could see a difference between the leica and other full-frame camera equipped with a good prime lens.

Though I think other mirrorless cameras are good candidates for replacing overpriced leica bodies (if only it makes any sense).

I'm not sure I would call all Nikon and Canon lenses "crap". They do make some good lenses. They make a lot of (relatively) bad ones as well.

I know that putting a Leica lens on my NEX-7 will improve the flat output no end. Popping a summilux on my x-pro1 will give excellent results. Using Zeiss lenses on my A900 also gives me great results...

Leica lenses do give impressive results. That doesn't make them intrinsically better in every way, but they are better than equivalents in many ways. In any event, whether it's better or not, the sensor has a unique signature that I think is superior to current CMOS FF sensors.

To the comment about Cosina made Zeiss lenses, I have some sympathy because many of the Zeiss lenses are top draw in quality and cost a lot less than Leica lenses, but also a lot less than top draw canon and Nikon lenses as well. They are quirky lenses with focus shift issues (C Sonnar 50 etc), but they give great bang for the buck.

Well let's see FlashInThePan, I'm basing my comment on experience of using Leica M lenses and ostensibly high quality Nikon lenses. And Nikons are crap for color, real crap compared to Leicas and Japanese made Zeiss too.

sgoldswo:

No of course Leica Ms are not better than Nikon lenses in every way, but the color from Leicas and also those Japanese made Zeiss easily bests Nikon. Samsung NX series lenses best Nikon too. Now if you want a really fast autofocus setup get a a Nikon D4 and a Nikon zoom, again assuming colour doesn't matter.

I have not used a Fuji X Pro1, but it sure reads like those lenses easily best Nikon for color too.

I have been using Ms since the early Nineties (M6), and l lusted for one for 15 years before that. It was really "outdated" at the time. Objectively, the Leica M was seen by many as "outdated" already in the Sixties... So you either look at it that way, or accept that the M's concept is in a place and time of its own. I accept that. The big problem with the M these days is not its "outdated" core design, as that design (optical rangefinder, mechanical precision, modus operandi) is precisely why people love it, but the big problem is the sensor.

In the film days, the M's excellence was upgraded every time Kodak, Fuji or Agfa came out with a new film. From the Tri-X of the early days to the Velvia or Portra of the end of the millennium, things just got better and better, even if you were using a 1956 M3.

In this century, the M's superb construction and wonderful mechano-optical engineering is plain overkill in view of sensor obsolescence.

Even worse, why pay so much for camera with a sensor that is terribly outdated? A 2nd hand DSLR for $300 will outperform it. I am not a technology and shoot a 7year old design camera, but this is just atrocious.

Like I said you are totally missing the point! You don't understand anything about Leica M ownership!Go and try one out, hold one and use one.Oh the sensor is not outdated, it is capable of recording a lot more than most DSLR as it does not have an Anti-aliasing filter, Nikon have only just thought of the idea with their D800e! perhaps they are old?

Marty4650, the M series is designed for constant carry and hard and tumble use. while not weather sealed, they can take a remarkable beating. 50 years of use in 2 years, that's the life of many a leica photographer. I carry it at least 20-30 times more often than i've ever carried a DSLR, and to placed I'd never bring the heavy equipment.

Buahahahaaha... are you a Steve Huff "I want to believe" follower? Actually E-M5 is far away from any rangefinder camera, of any age, and its "touch and shoot" appeal is also far away from any idea about photography that live in the M9.

One may like it. One may hate it. But, it still is the greatest design in photography. I'd love to have one, but at the price it costs, it's impossible.Very good article. Indeed, shooting with a rangefinder is quite different from shooting with a reflex, but in the end, what really counts are the lenses and above all, the photographer.

I would love an M9-P. I am prepared to accept the limitations to get the superb Leica lenses. Just look on Fred Miranda reviews to see all the comments about having good or bad copies of Canon lenses (even their professional L series lenses).

A secondary advantage over most DSLRs is the small size of the Leica bodies and lenses.

When I went looking for a new camera I tried DSLRs...but rejected the concept as it is too big and heavy and "in your face" for travelling with. I went down the M43 route and since progressed to an M9...a mix of M9 and M43 plus fast manual primes makes my perfect travel set up...and it is always there. You can't take photos if the camera is too big to carry with you. APCS is no good for this as the form factor is too close to FF.

Some of the funniest things I read from Leica purists include how Leica images are unique. Hell, it's not even that hard to PP and make anything look like anything else. I've seen people do this even on the Leica forum, fooling people by using other brands and stripping the EXIF.

If you remove the exif and take a NEX file, a Samsung NX200 and a Leica and run all of them with the same lens by adapter, I bet what you want that resized at same image size, no Leica user will ever be able to say what has been shot with a Leica. I made the test with the NEX-7 against the D3X. The owner was somewhat "choked" to find out that the 1200$ gadget made the same good picture as the big pricey thing.

@FTW You can make great photos with any brand of camera, but the CCD in the M9 has its own signature, particularly for wide-open shots with fast lenses. If you ran your test with a Sony or Samsung APS-C with the lens wide open you could spot the difference easily from the depth of field difference. If you stopped them down you would still see the difference, because the output from the M9 is so sharp and has exceptional 3D pop. It might well be difficult to see the difference stopped down compared to other full frame cameras. But I can live with that!

For me it's not a matter of comparing the pictures between cameras, like for like, but rather than process in obtaining the picture. It's a different experience. For those who don't know or are confused, grab a rangefinder and try it out.

Next verse - Everybody sing it....Oh Lord it's a con jobWho needs it anywaysLets just move on andsave for rainy daysProve that a theif draw couldbe a better thingAnd I'll give you my Canonwith price that did not sting

Funny how after every Leica review comes all the negative Leica bashing comments and always be people who have never used or even held a Leica, why?

If someone calls a Leica M body "archaic" they have zero idea what Leica is about they simply look at the price and try to match it against a Nikon or Canon DLSR.

Someone else said "buy a D4" why? can you really not see the point of Leica M ownership? lugging a D4 around for the day is the opposite!

Like I said all the Weekend Warriors and wannabe pros will always knock Leica as they can't afford or justify them, so if you have zero knowledge about something then why do you comment? I know zero about brain surgery so i won't comment on that and knock it!

Truth of the matter is that Leica M use is the most purest and rewarding in photography, the fact that it does not have Live View, Face Recognition and a host of other useless features is welcome and might even make you concentrate on actually taking a decent picture!

I always welcome a simple tool with low amount of gadgets. But, first of all i look at the result and then at the price. For me a Leica could be a good tool, good material, but still it is absolutely too expensive. Not everyone has the budget to buy a tool for that price. A Sony NEX-7 has been tested to compete in picture quality with most of the full-frame cameras and is a tool that can be used manually with adapters in the same way you use a Leica. And for 1200$ it is affordable. A Leica might lose less in value, but this doesn't cares me anyway. Between 1200 and 6 to 7000 there is some difference I would not pay for. But, this again is a choice to do. If you have money to throw away, you don't care anyway. I do not have it, and even respecting a Leica, I would not enumerate negative points of it, all cameras have some and everyone sees that in a different way.

Relating any negative point to a Leica user would be as effective as criticizing Allah to a Muslim. I buy a camera every 5 to 6 years and I make my choice on flexibility, image quality and price for sure and here I went for a NEX-7. Compared to a Leica, it is less expensive and can compete with it in picture quality without any problem. You are right when you say that some bash a product they never uses. For the rest you defend Apples against oranges. I have some big monsters too, but I prefer to carry the gadget around anyway. If a car need an airco and a radio can be a subject of an endless discussion, so is life-view and face tracking. No one forces you to use it anyway.

Sorry guys, but the NEX7 cannot compete with FF cameras or the M9 - FF is in a different league than APS-C - well, it can, but only on price :-) That said almost any camera can make quite decent or good images in perfect light.

Why is the Lecia M the purest form of photogtraphy?Why not wet plates and pin holes?Or view a camera?Why is the M9 pure?Granted unlike most digital camera it does not have a lot of features, which might make it a less fiddly process. But you can engage manual mode, including manual focus on lots of cameras and do with out all of the fancy bells and whistles. Granted an optical viewfinder and small size are attractive, but I still don't see those that combination (and it is only that combination that makes a M9 unique these days) makes the M9 more "pure".It's this condescending bulls, from those who can afford them to those who can't which really gives me the sh1ts.Sure I can see the benefits, but I am not so blind as to think that those benefits constitute mystical purity.What's is more I am rational enough to know that there are things the M series does not do well.So please, what is it about the M series that make them photographically pure? What is photographic purity?

jtan163 - The m8, m9, and rD1 are the only digital cameras I'm aware of that are designed to be manual focus cameras only, and through an optical finder. Because of this it brings them much closer in design philosophy to a fully mechanical film camera, hence, "purity"

Not sure if you've used a rangefinder. I use one – a medium format film type. And, speaking from experience, because the camera and its controls are so analogue and due to the nature of the focussing mechanism I do in fact feel more involved in the scene. The closest analogy that I can think of is that the DSLR I use is more like a modern car with lots of bells and whistles whereas a rangefinder (particularly a simplified one) is a manually controlled vehicle. You just feel more connected to the road/scene.

Well, if the lenses are mouth watering, but the camera body, though well built, is archaic with bottom plate and low res lcd, poor high iso performance, poor handling in some areas, confusing menus, etc. then there is a cheaper, modern design that is also well made and handles manual Leica M mount lenses very well. Smaller too, and cheaper. It is called a Ricoh GXR with A12 mount for LM lenses. Seems that the Ricoh covered all the bases that consistently bothered the test panel.

Nobody noticed?

How about they each be given a Ricoh GXR-M and try a re-run? Sorry that it only has an aps-c sensor.

The Ricoh is very nice indeed, but if you are watering for a Leica camera, you probably are familiar with, and love, the rangefinder system. The GXR is as far removed from a rangefinder focusing system as an SLR is. It is small and light and robust, but it isn't the same thing. And, it is a crop sensor, so those lenses you bought to work at a specific focal length, are no longer the same lenses.

You do have a point. But some people just appreciate the 'tools'. For the reason you mentioned I chose a mechanical watch from mostly unknown brand. I did not want to be 'labelled' as 'that guy wears XYZ watch, he surely is a snob' - I just appreciate it (I know it is not as precise as quartz watch and costs more, though less than a ROlex :) ).

So - if I actually had the cash and bought an M9 (or M10 or whatever comes) I would probably just have the Leica logo and engravings blacked out .

The Vietname era photo journalist Tim Page wrote about a Rolex he lost in a pond in a hotel in what I think was then Saigon. He came back 20 years later and the pond was drained and there was his Rolex. Which still worked after a wash off and a wind/shake.

>By jtan163 (1 hour ago) Well Rolexes are robust - the average Casio less so.

I use to own a Rolex Date Just until while doing stream surveying I had to put my hand into the stream to dig out bugs living under the soil for sampling. Well the seal on the "Rolex" leaked water into the casing. Just couldn't handle the cold.

Thanks for the article. Although it is also far above my camera budget, as most european made equipment is, I found it an interesting article. It only increased my lust for this camera, despite some of the irrelevant shortcomings. Only find it a pity that the shutter sound is louder than in the filmdays. Same goes for my Pen; too loud.I found some of picture samples to be very good actually and satisfying for such a camera, although I know I can sometimes also get some good photos with my cheap Ixus. But that is also irrelevant Funny how some people react, just because they are not willing to or able to pay for or appreciate qualities, that for some others mean a lot.

Whole pages fawning over how discreet and quiet this camera is without a slapping mirror yet the combined Nikon 1 cameras got 2 sentences in a full-fledged review in regards to its electronic shutter in regards to sound. One in the conclusion and the other a quickly passed over comment in regards to its 60 fps mode. It was so glossed over that being new to photo gear I had no clue how unique it was especially compared to MFT. Not to mention there are IQ compromises for having pure electronic shutter or on-sensor pdaf, but besides sensor size and dof, you are not compromised at all. Compare Nikon 1s sensor and pricing to Leica, and I wonder why the fuss and fawning here and why dpreview is so discreet about Nikon 1 being even more discreet. I let go of a bargain and now get to read how I can't afford to shoot a noisy FF sensor on a camera that is out of date tech rather quietly, vs a pure silent electronic shutter camera with leading edge tech.